I don't know how Loon [0] (graduated Google X project) can look at this and justify their continued existence.
Low earth orbit satellites with global coverage seem like such a better approach than balloons that you have to handle in the air assuming the following is true:
- Latency difference between the two is negligible
- Satellites are not uniquely affected by weather
- Balloons are not better in some other unknown way?
I wonder if they're seeing this as the existential threat that it is.
Balloons can be concentrated in the areas where they are needed most. The nature of non-geosynchronous orbital planes is you end up having to distribute satellites roughly uniformly around the earth (you get non-uniform effects with latitude but in very limited ways).
Balloons can be brought down and be serviced, satellites are basically throw it up there and replace it when it breaks.
Google already has experience with being an ISP with fiber and fi.
I tend to agree that starlink is winning, but balloons do have some advantages.
SpaceX is developing the launch capability so this is even more concerning for Loon since they can't really compete on that reduced cost. Launch is also mostly an up front cost, balloon launch, tracking, and recovery is recurring.
I think you're right on balloon concentration and there's a narrow use case here for things like congested events, but it's pretty niche. I think Starlink is trying to get uniform satellite distribution? Global coverage in the common case seems a lot more important than concentration as long as you can meet the minimum bandwidth required (which they probably can).
I think servicing is a good point, maybe the balloons can improve faster as a result, but it's also a negative (having to service/track them all of the time). It's also not global coverage - has Loon given up on this goal entirely?
Global coverage for Starlink means access to a global customer market which can help cover their increased costs (since I'd guess margins after launch are low). Without a global market even if Loon has lower costs it'll be harder for them to get the revenue to cover them.
> "Google already has experience with being an ISP with fiber and fi."
They abandoned Fiber and I hear Fi kind of sucks, but you're right that this is a point in their favor.
These feel like rationalizations of a losing position to me.
Assuming SpaceX actually manages to build a sustainable business with Starlink, it will be interesting to see if anyone else is able to overcome the cost of launch services to build up their own. SpaceX seems to have a huge competitive moat here because they can launch on their own rockets at cost. Near as I can tell, the only other company that has even a chance of doing that is Amazon, assuming they can fly on Blue Origin rockets once those are operational.
Should be a fun few years watching this industry try to establish itself.
Low earth orbit satellites with global coverage seem like such a better approach than balloons that you have to handle in the air assuming the following is true:
- Latency difference between the two is negligible
- Satellites are not uniquely affected by weather
- Balloons are not better in some other unknown way?
I wonder if they're seeing this as the existential threat that it is.
What am I missing?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEZfRh-h-s https://loon.com/